Ron Paul

[Dahoss9698]

Regardless of how you feel about him politically, seems like he's getting the raw deal at the convention.

What gives?

[boxcar]

Regardless of how you feel about him politically, seems like he's getting the raw deal at the convention.

What gives?

He's anti-establishment, maybe?

Boxcar

[sammy the sage]

He tells THE truth...a very RARE attribute amongst career politicians...

What's really fascinating...his base is mostly 20 somethings yrs. of age

[Dahoss9698]

He tells THE truth...a very RARE attribute amongst career politicians...

What's really fascinating...his base is mostly 20 somethings yrs. of age

Brace yourself....I agree.

[NJ Stinks]

Brace yourself....I agree.

Me too.

[elysiantraveller]

See this stuff surprises me when people from the left hop on the Ron Paul bandwagon... the guy is as far to the right on fiscal/role of government issues as you can be...

This makes no sense to me...

[Dahoss9698]

See this stuff surprises me when people from the left hop on the Ron Paul bandwagon... the guy is as far to the right on fiscal issues as you can be...

This makes no sense to me...

I didn't hop on anyone's bandwagon. I just happen to agree that he tells the truth.

[ArlJim78]

I really doubt that some of you know what Ron Paul does and does not stand for. Pro life, reduce the tax rate, repeal Obamacare and Dodd Frank, cut five departments from government, cut the size of government spending by $1 trillion dollars in one year!, promote homeschooling tax credits, to name just a few things. I mean I'm for a lot of his domestic agenda, but also I'm considered to the right of attila the hun.

and people who are repulsed by the supposed "hard right" Mitt Romney are sympathetic to Ron Paul? I don't get it.

[ArlJim78]

See this stuff surprises me when people from the left hop on the Ron Paul bandwagon... the guy is as far to the right on fiscal/role of government issues as you can be...

This makes no sense to me...
yeah I just posted the same thing. Doesn't make any sense.

[Dahoss9698]

So no one besides Boxcar is interested in discussing his treatment at the convention?

[ArlJim78]

why don't you lead the discussion dahoss (for once) and tell us what is wrong with his treatment at the convention, and try to be specific. see that way maybe others might have an opinion to share.
myself I didn't know there was an issue about how Paul is being treated. so please enlighten us who don't follow it as closely as you do.

[elysiantraveller]

I didn't hop on anyone's bandwagon. I just happen to agree that he tells the truth.

:confused:

That statement is what I am referring to... it doesn't make sense to me.

Its like saying "I need a heart transplant but I guess I'll just get a pedicure..."

or...

"That guy has it all figured out... lets not do ANYTHING he suggests...."

[ArlJim78]

:confused:

That statement is what I am referring to... it doesn't make sense to me.

Its like saying "I need a heart transplant but I guess I'll just get a pedicure..."

or...

"That guy has it all figured out... lets not do ANYTHING he suggests...."
haha, thread winning post right there.:lol:

[Valuist]

See this stuff surprises me when people from the left hop on the Ron Paul bandwagon... the guy is as far to the right on fiscal/role of government issues as you can be...

This makes no sense to me...

You are assuming that many on the left have any idea where he stands re: fiscal issues. They know he's against war.

[JustRalph]

Smart guy, stupid politician. No matter what you think of some of his positions, he could never advance to the office of Prez. Therefore is a distraction at best. The Repubs don't need distractions. He should have been ostracized completely.

I agree with him on some issues but the Repub primaries always hurt the party way too much and he never should have been included in debates etc.

[elysiantraveller]

So no one besides Boxcar is interested in discussing his treatment at the convention?

No.

I don't think he was treated poorly. The rules were put in place before convention to avoid a potential yet entirely useless delegate fight. Ron Paul wasn't treated unfairly... his son spoke this evening.

[ArlJim78]

the convention is about the winner, Mitt Romney and the campaign going forward to beat Obama. It's not about about how the third or fourth place finishers in the primary are treated. Nobody cares at this point, except maybe the Paulnuts, whether or not Paul was fairly treated. or how Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum feels or how they were treated, that ship has sailed, that fight is over. it's a non story.

[Dahoss9698]

No.

I don't think he was treated poorly. The rules were put in place before convention to avoid a potential yet entirely useless delegate fight. Ron Paul wasn't treated unfairly... his son spoke this evening.

We'll agree to disagree then.

IMO, changing delegate rules in order to screw Paul's delegations seems unfair. Cutting off delegates' mics who tried to speak for Paul seems unfair. The RNC refusing to announce Ron Paul delegate vote totals from the stage seems pretty unfair.

[Dahoss9698]

the convention is about the winner, Mitt Romney and the campaign going forward to beat Obama. It's not about about how the third or fourth place finishers in the primary are treated. Nobody cares at this point, except maybe the Paulnuts, whether or not Paul was fairly treated. or how Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum feels or how they were treated, that ship has sailed, that fight is over. it's a non story.

Non story to you and Fox News. But not to many people who are able to think past what Rush or Ann Coulter tells them.

[ArlJim78]

Ron Paul has nothing to cry about, he would never even commit to supporting the Republican nominee if it wasn't him, and now we're supposed to be appalled and mourn the unfairness of his treatment at the Republican convention? gimme a break. he always tries to have it both ways.

[thaskalos]

the convention is about the winner, Mitt Romney and the campaign going forward to beat Obama. It's not about about how the third or fourth place finishers in the primary are treated. Nobody cares at this point, except maybe the Paulnuts, whether or not Paul was fairly treated. or how Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum feels or how they were treated, that ship has sailed, that fight is over. it's a non story.

Ok...let's say it's understandable that Ron Paul was denied a speaking slot at the GOP convention, since, after all, tonight was all about Romney...and Ron Paul had refused to let the Romney campaign pre-approve the speech that he intended to give.

Would you care to enlighten us on why Paul was practicaly muzzled during the Republican primaries...and why Romney did all he could to prevent Paul from speaking there too?

Or are those "non-issues" as well?

[ArlJim78]

Non story to you and Fox News. But not to many people who are able to think past what Rush or Ann Coulter tells them.
I speak my own opinions. I could only guess how Rush or Ann Coulter feel about the matter.

[ArlJim78]

Ok...let's say it's understandable that Ron Paul was denied a speaking slot at the GOP convention, since, after all, tonight was all about Romney...and Ron Paul had refused to let the Romney campaigh pre-approve the speach that he intended to give.

Would you care to enlighten us on why Paul was practicaly muzzled during the Republican primaries...and why Romney did all he could to prevent Paul from speaking there too?

Or are those "non-issues" as well?
how was he muzzled by Romney?
every debate I saw there was Ron Paul with a mic in hand.
I didn't realize that people actually spoke at the primaries. I thought primaries were where people voted.

can you enlighten us with one example of how Ron Paul was muzzled by Mitt Romney? I was not aware of that.

[thaskalos]

can you enlighten us with one example of how Ron Paul was muzzled by Mitt Romney? I was not aware of that.

Does it surprise you that you don't know everything?

[ArlJim78]

Does it surprise you that you don't know everything?
no. but I can usually at least try to support my assertions.
does that mean you have no example of Romney muzzling Paul?
I'm truly very curious how one politician can muzzle another at a primary.

[thaskalos]

no. but I can usually at least try to support my assertions.
does that mean you have no example of Romney muzzling Paul?
I'm truly very curious how one politician can muzzle another.

You don't know that Romney and the GOP contested the Ron Paul wins in Louisiana, Maine, Massachussets and Oregon...in an attempt to deny him his rightful place on the ballot, and his 15-minute speaking slot?

[ArlJim78]

You don't know that Romney and the GOP contested the Ron Paul wins in Louisiana, Maine, Massachussets and Oregon...in an attempt to deny him his rightful place on the ballot, and his 15-minute speaking slot?
I know there were some shenanagins going on over those delegates, on BOTH sides, but didn't pay close attention to what the motive might be because frankly I don't like Ron Paul and I find him exceedingly irritating, whiny and meddlesome even though I agree with much of his outlook except for his racist and anti semitic views that is. somehow those are always overlooked and swept under the rug by those enthralled with his honesty.

you say it was to deny Paul 15 minutes time to speak? I'm not sure about that, but I know that Ron Paul declined an invitation to speak at this convention because he would not commit to a full endorsement of Romney, and would not submit his speech to be vetted. so he took a principled stand I guess but if it was so important to speak at the convention why couldn't he make those two concessions? Everyone else did.

He's always there when the race is about him, once it isn't about him anymore he can hardly be bothered and you can forget about support from him. I just don't like much about the guy as you can tell.

[thaskalos]

I know there were some shenanagins going on over those delegates, on BOTH sides, but didn't pay close attention to what the motive might be because frankly I don't like Ron Paul and I find him exceedingly irritating, whiny and meddlesome even though I agree with much of his outlook except for his racist and anti semitic views that is. somehow those are always overlooked and swept under the rug by those enthralled with his honesty.

you say it was to deny Paul 15 minutes time to speak? I'm not sure about that, but I know that Ron Paul declined an invitation to speak at this convention because he would not commit to a full endorsement of Romney, and would not submit his speech to be vetted. so he took a principled stand I guess but if it was so important to speak at the convention why couldn't he make those two concessions? Everyone else did.

He's always there when the race is about him, once it isn't about him anymore he can hardly be bothered and you can forget about support from him. I just don't like much about the guy as you can tell.

No one can deny you the right to dislike Ron Paul for whatever reason...because we all have a right to voice our opinion.

But, in MY opinion, you are wrong when you say that Ron Paul was treated fairly at the Republican debates.

Just compare his "air-time" with that of everybody else...

[bigmack]

Could it be considered a non-issue if they had allowed a few mics to yap about him or read his delegate count over the PA?

Imagine that was done, a kazoo was blown and we'll throw in a sundae with a cherry on top. All better now?

What's the difference if they did that or didn't?

RP is a fringe character.

What about Garry?

[NJ Stinks]

He tells THE truth...a very RARE attribute amongst career politicians...

What's really fascinating...his base is mostly 20 somethings yrs. of age

Saying I agree with what Sammy said doesn't in any way, shape or form mean I'm hopping on Ron Paul's bandwagon. It simply means I agree with both points Sammy made.

[Greyfox]

After Romney got past the 1144 votes Rand Paul spoke"


"Well, you know, my first choice had always been my father…. He is still my first pick," Sen. Paul told Fox News in June. "But now that the nominating process is over, tonight, I am happy to announce I am supporting Governor Romney."

[lamboguy]

from what i know, Dr. Paul is a very good friend of nominee Romney. he is no longer running for his house seat, and he might play some important part in a future presidential administration. one of the biggest things that Paul always wanted to do is do an inventory of the national treasury. this might be something very scary to most private citizens, and they didn't want him to detract from the convention that is going along great so far.

up until Richard Nixon, every single republican president believed in the gold standard, and even Nixon didn't exactly end it, he just closed the gold window because he had no other choice at the time. there is an extremely good chance that the next president will try to put us back on some type of gold standard. Dr. Paul is an expert in that matter.

[ArlJim78]

exactly, Paul was treated with kid gloves by Romney all through the debate cycle, while he brutalized Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. There was even talk of an alliance between them because it was plain to see they were taking a hands off policy towards each other. So Paul has nothing to complain about, he's been coddled compared to everyone else.

[ArlJim78]

No one can deny you the right to dislike Ron Paul for whatever reason...because we all have a right to voice our opinion.

But, in MY opinion, you are wrong when you say that Ron Paul was treated fairly at the Republican debates.

Just compare his "air-time" with that of everybody else...
His "airtime" during the debates has to do with the media, they direct the questions during the debates. they focused on Romney, Perry, Gingrich because they know Paul is a non-factor. you want to talk about fairness at the debates? when was any Republican treated fairly by the media?

But another point is what I mentioned below, Romney never went after Paul in the debates. In my opinion he was treated more than fairly by everyone. Look at the vicious stuff that was thrown at Perry and Gingrich.

And my final comment on this, I don't feel Paul is honest at all. He runs as a Republican only to gain a greater platform from which to speak, not because he supports or agrees with the party or it's nominee, or that he will work with the party. No he's a Republican just to get what he wants. If he were honest he would run as a libertarian which is what he really is, instead of mucking up the Republican process like he has all these years. You can't do that then have your supporters cry about not being treated fairly.
Frankly nobody had it easier in this whole process than Ron Paul. He largely got a free pass.

[elysiantraveller]

We'll agree to disagree then.

IMO, changing delegate rules in order to screw Paul's delegations seems unfair. Cutting off delegates' mics who tried to speak for Paul seems unfair. The RNC refusing to announce Ron Paul delegate vote totals from the stage seems pretty unfair.

Really?!?

The DNC changed the rules so that no delegates could go to anyone but the President.

John Wolfe Sues Democrats Over Delegates (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/05/john_wolfe_sues_arkansas_dems.html)

I'm pretty sure a felon in West Virginia got some delegates too... shall they be permitted to speak at the DNC?...

This is sheep stuff... sponsored by the media.

:bang: :bang:

[Dahoss9698]

Really?!?

The DNC changed the rules so that no delegates could go to anyone but the President.

John Wolfe Sues Democrats Over Delegates (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/05/john_wolfe_sues_arkansas_dems.html)

I'm pretty sure a felon in West Virginia got some delegates too... shall they be permitted to speak at the DNC?...

This is sheep stuff... sponsored by the media.

:bang: :bang:

Nice deflection. What does what happened to Paul have to do with the DNC?

I'll save you the time.....absolutely nothing.

I'm totally fine disagreeing on this, but why are you having such a hard time actually addressing it? You want to talk about everything, but the topic.

Wonder why.

[elysiantraveller]

Nice deflection. What does what happened to Paul have to do with the DNC?

I'll save you the time.....absolutely nothing.

I'm totally fine disagreeing on this, but why are you having such a hard time actually addressing it? You want to talk about everything, but the topic.

Wonder why.

I've already addressed it... It was done to avoid a useless delegate fight created by a delegation whose candidate only earned 5% of the votes.

Then to make it sound like this isn't unique situation I pointed out that the rules for the Democrats this time around is that NO ONE can even get delegates. I'm not even trying to be partisan here just pointing out facts.

This is/was done to avoid shenanigans. But the media says this should be a issue so the sheep flock to it.

[Tom]

Two things republicans try to avoid - Conservatives and the truth.
Fact, is without the conservative element, the repubs LOSE elections.
The religious right is the cancer in the party - they have to drive that element out and embrace true conservative principles and learn to focus.

They are not doing a good job in this campaign so far.
Ron Paul should be the keynote speaker.

[ElKabong]

But, in MY opinion, you are wrong when you say that Ron Paul was treated fairly at the Republican debates.

Just compare his "air-time" with that of everybody else...

Ron Paul had ample time and exposure in the primary debates. He again failed to win over enough support to be a serious contender.

The Convention's reason to be, is to formally nominate the Republican candidate. That is Romney. Not Paul. If Paul wanted a grand stage in Aaugust then he should be more appealing to his party, or, pay for his own exposure somewhere.

[Tom]

Good points.
Although I would say the "debates" were pretty much orchestrated from the git go and Paul never stood a chance against the party machine.

Just another reason we need to outlaw political parties. Parties serve themselves, not the people. All parties, all the time.

The only time the people are served is when their interests happen to coincide with a party agenda.

[ArlJim78]

gee it's a real puzzler why Paul wasn't greeted with a warm welcome and given a 20 minute primetime slot at the Republican convention so that he could explain to the world how the Republican party wasn't his.
totally unfair.


Later in the Bloomberg appearance, Paul said the Republican Party “is not my party.”

“I do not like politics at all,” said Paul. “I think both parties are Keynesian economists, and support positions that I do not like. So, the party, in many ways is irrelevant.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/31/ron-paul-reacts-to-romney-eastwood-rnc-convention-performances/#ixzz25BQvcDcu

[Dahoss9698]

In other words...fall in line or we don't want you at our circle jerk.

[thaskalos]

Shows how much I know...

I always thought that partisan politics were a bad thing...

[newtothegame]

In other words...fall in line or we don't want you at our circle jerk.
I really doubt dahoss, that this was the line of thinking. Although a case can be made for your argument above, I would ask why should Paul, who openly say's he is NOT with the rethugs, be given anytime on a rethug nominating process?
Seems to me if Paul wants air time at a convention, then maybe a libertarian convention (he could start one). It's not like he didnt have supporters. But as minimal as they were in the big scheme of things, I don't think he should of tried to "crash" the rethug's party.
JMHO

[PaceAdvantage]

In other words...fall in line or we don't want you at our circle jerk.I hope you're as critical (and as crass) of the other circle jerk taking place in North Carolina in a few days time.

Four years ago, were the Democrats more open to their fringe candidates during their convention where Obama was formally crowned as their king?

[ArlJim78]

yeah I don't know why they are so touchy about having the speakers at their conventions be either party members or people who actually support the party or it's nominee.

they should really open it up to be fair to everyone. they should dedicate one whole night to opposing points of view, people who don't support the nominee could talk about what they don't like. and keeping it truly nonpartisan, party conventions should be open to other political parties too.

the viewing public is not really interested in knowing more about the people on the ticket or what they stand for or what they propose to do if elected, what they really want to hear are the viewpoints of people who won't be on the ticket, and hypothetically what they would do if they actually had enough support to matter, or if they were even interested in politics.

nothing says "we're ready to lead this country" than a cacophony of disgruntled voices, dissention, and disunity. voters really eat that up.

[thaskalos]

yeah I don't know why they are so touchy about having the speakers at their conventions be either party members or people who actually support the party or it's nominee.

they should really open it up to be fair to everyone. they should dedicate one whole night to opposing points of view, people who don't support the nominee could talk about what they don't like. and keeping it truly nonpartisan, party conventions should be open to other political parties too.

the viewing public is not really interested in knowing more about the people on the ticket or what they stand for or what they propose to do if elected, what they really want to hear are the viewpoints of people who won't be on the ticket, and hypothetically what they would do if they actually had enough support to matter, or if they were even interested in politics.

nothing says "we're ready to lead this country" than a cacophony of disgruntled voices, dissention, and disunity. voters really eat that up.

Hold on a second here, Jim.

In your post above (#41) you criticized Ron Paul for something he said AFTER the Republican Convention...and that's why I submitted my "partisan politics" post.

Do you find something wrong with a Republican politician criticizing a Republican presidential nominee's economic policies...even if this criticism occurs OUTSIDE the Republican Convention?

Should all politicians just "toe the line"...and mindlessly support everything their party seems to stand for?

Is this the type of backbone that we want in our "leaders"?

[NJ Stinks]

I hope you're as critical (and as crass) of the other circle jerk taking place in North Carolina in a few days time.

Four years ago, were the Democrats more open to their fringe candidates during their convention where Obama was formally crowned as their king?

As a matter of fact, yes.

It's all about having a Big Tent on the Left! Watch & Enjoy! :cool:

Hillary Clinton spoke for over 20 minutes.

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Sen-Hillary-Clinton-D-NY-Address-at-Democratic-National-Convention/11082/

Not fringe enough for you? How about Dennis Kucinich?

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/280557-5

Or maybe Governor Bill Richardson of NM?

http://www.c-span.org/DNC/Events/Governor-Richardson-2008-Convention-Speech/A280566-13/

[newtothegame]

Hold on a second here, Jim.

In your post above (#41) you criticized Ron Paul for something he said AFTER the Republican Convention...and that's why I submitted my "partisan politics" post.

Do you find something wrong with a Republican politician criticizing a Republican presidential nominee's economic policies...even if this criticism occurs OUTSIDE the Republican Convention?

Should all politicians just "toe the line"...and mindlessly support everything their party seems to stand for?

Is this the type of backbone that we want in our "leaders"?
Thas, arent you trying to "stretch" this a bit far??? We go from a thread about Ron Paul, and now you try to turn it into "Do you find something wrong with a Republican politician criticizing a Republican presidential nominee's economic policies...even if this criticism occurs OUTSIDE the Republican Convention?"
Ron Paul, regardless of the label "R" he has by his name has never been a republican except for his own political agenda (getting elected).
He has said he disagrees with the party and is more closely aligned with being a libertarian. Problem is, libertarians rarely get elected so therefore 'I am a republican".
The guy went through the process, and did not fair as well as he would of liked.
He had his chances to stump just like the rest of them. Problem is not very many in the country like his COMPLETE policy (especially concerning foriegn issues).
So, now he should be afforded more "air time"???
Why isnt Gingrich crying about it?
Santorum?
Both who have more credibility then Paul.....
For that matter, why don't we just give some air time to Buddy Roemer as well....
:lol:

[ArlJim78]

Hold on a second here, Jim.

In your post above (#41) you criticized Ron Paul for something he said AFTER the Republican Convention...and that's why I submitted my "partisan politics" post.

Do you find something wrong with a Republican politician criticizing a Republican presidential nominee's economic policies...even if this criticism occurs OUTSIDE the Republican Convention?

Should all politicians just "toe the line"...and mindlessly support everything their party seems to stand for?

Is this the type of backbone that we want in our "leaders"?
there is a time for intra-party criticism and debate, it's not during the election season however. The primary season is the perfect place for it,
when party members challenge one another or their leader. it was roughly a nine month slog which began last summer. there must have been 30 debates hundreds of speeches and TV interviews in total. Paul competed in this process and came up way short in terms of the required amount of support to win the nomination.


after the primary season the party heals and rebuilds, they put aside the rancor and yes to some extent fall in line to support the leader, because in most cases the reason why people identify themselves with a party is because they are generally more or less aligned with the party thinking, much more so than the competing party. Even folks with bitter differences end up doing this. Romney came to terms with Gingrich, Santorum and the others. Obama came to terms with the Clintons. It's not to say that they agree on everything, but they put a good face on it as they prepare for the larger war. and that is the point, when you're charging into battle it isn't the best time to quibble with the general because you disagree with his philosophy, you follow orders and fight like hell because one side is going to die (metaphorically speaking) and you don't want it to be your side. A leader with backbone does that kind of thing, momentarily puts aside his agenda for the good of the party. Paul wanted to be the general but lost, and now has no interest in being a soldier either.

after the election it is also okay to criticize your party leaders or polices.

However as I've pointed out so many times, Paul is not a Republican, does not identify with them or support them. that's why he doesn't fall into line. One wonders what he was doing all this time masquerading as a republican and seeking money and support from the public to win the Republican nomination, then only to find out he won't support the party in this election, and even goes as far as to say that it is not his party. Well if he was honest during the debates he should have made that clear. He should have said "I don't support this party, I won't support the party nominee if it isn't me, and frankly I don't like politics". If you are running for a party's nomination for the highest office in the country it's not too much to ask that you reveal your real agenda up front so people know where you're coming from

Bottom line, don't pretend to be a member of a party if you have no intention of reciprocating and making even the smallest show of support. Sure debate and criticism are healthy and expected, but when running for the top post of a political party, some degree of partisanship is expected at some point. If you can't do that you don't belong in the party.

[Dahoss9698]

I hope you're as critical (and as crass) of the other circle jerk taking place in North Carolina in a few days time.

Four years ago, were the Democrats more open to their fringe candidates during their convention where Obama was formally crowned as their king?

Actually, after being taught about how things work in off topic, I'm going to just put my head in the sand and then deflect away from the topic if it comes up.

I just want to fit in, ya know?

[Tom]

Really?!?

The DNC changed the rules so that no delegates could go to anyone but the President.

You are right, and so is Dahoss.
BOTH parties have effectively SLAPPED the citizens of this country in the face by doing this.

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698
In other words...fall in line or we don't want you at our circle jerk.

I really doubt dahoss, that this was the line of thinking.

I am sure that is exactly the way it went down, and the same thing happens on the other side. You have to understand the PARTY exists inspite of the people, not for them NO PARTY represents the people. No party ever will.


I strongly suggest everyone refuse to support any political parties....Dem, repubs, Nazis ------they all do the same thing - deny citizens rights to further their own interests. NO PARTY is ever to be trusted. Anyone in party is not representing anyone but the party.

You two just showed just showed that to be 100% correct.

[Dahoss9698]

You are right, and so is Dahoss.
BOTH parties have effectively SLAPPED the citizens of this country in the face by doing this.

I strongly suggest everyone refuse to support any political parties....Dem, repubs, Nazis ------they all do the same thing - deny citizens rights to further their own interests. NO PARTY is ever to be trusted. Anyone in party is not representing anyone but the party.

You two just showed just showed that to be 100% correct.

I love when we agree Tom. :D

[Tom]

This is getting eerie!

[sammy the sage]

I love when we agree Tom. :D

That makes a threesome :lol:

and there are many more here who think THE same...and I'm beginning to think even the average American is FINALLY starting to smell the stench

[thaskalos]

Make that a quartet. :ThmbUp:

Just a big happy family around here...:)

[Tom]

Make that a quartet. :ThmbUp:

Just a big happy family around here...:)

Love your new suit, Bro!

[PaceAdvantage]

As a matter of fact, yes.

It's all about having a Big Tent on the Left! Watch & Enjoy! :cool:

Hillary Clinton spoke for over 20 minutes.

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Sen-Hillary-Clinton-D-NY-Address-at-Democratic-National-Convention/11082/

Not fringe enough for you? How about Dennis Kucinich?

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/280557-5

Or maybe Governor Bill Richardson of NM?

http://www.c-span.org/DNC/Events/Governor-Richardson-2008-Convention-Speech/A280566-13/How in the world can you include Hillary Clinton? She was Obama's main competition! In fact, according to wiki, Clinton actually WON the popular vote in the primary, 48.04% to 47.31%, so I would HOPE she got a chance to speak!

How about this Mike Gravel guy...did he get a chance to speak at the DNC? He's the only one who didn't endorse Obama...would he be equivalent to a Ron Paul in that matter? All the other players in the 2008 primary formally endorsed the big O.

[PaceAdvantage]

Actually, after being taught about how things work in off topic, I'm going to just put my head in the sand and then deflect away from the topic if it comes up.

I just want to fit in, ya know?What?

[fast4522]

Ron Paul like the EverReady bunny just keeps on going, I think its fair to thank the man for participating in the process on the national stage. When Harry Reid is all done as the Senate majority leader it would be wonderful to use some of dingy Harry's tactics to see how the party on the left likes it with some of Ron Paul's ideas but just a few. Just a few of Ron Paul's positions to fix some of the filth of the last fifty years. It may never happen but as long as Ron Paul keeps saying things that deeply disturb the left it is fine with me. I see his son becoming a big player in the next few years, and wish both father and son a long life and continued political success.

[Tom]

Good point, fast...without documented records, it never happened.

[NJ Stinks]

Four years ago, were the Democrats more open to their fringe candidates during their convention where Obama was formally crowned as their king?

I responded to the above with two fringe candidates and Hillary. So now you move the crossbar by saying I haven't named somebody who didn't endorse Obama.

I'm not a mind reader.

How in the world can you include Hillary Clinton? She was Obama's main competition! In fact, according to wiki, Clinton actually WON the popular vote in the primary, 48.04% to 47.31%, so I would HOPE she got a chance to speak!

How about this Mike Gravel guy...did he get a chance to speak at the DNC? He's the only one who didn't endorse Obama...would he be equivalent to a Ron Paul in that matter? All the other players in the 2008 primary formally endorsed the big O.

[elysiantraveller]

Lovely amendments to the platform today...

:faint: :rolleyes: :faint:

Any faux outrage over that?...

[NJ Stinks]

Lovely amendments to the platform today...

:faint: :rolleyes: :faint:

Any faux outrage over that?...

Yea. I thought it was total BS. The Dems just shot themselves in the foot for no reason.

P.S. Did FOX News mention the Republican platform last week? (If they did, I missed it.)

[elysiantraveller]

Yea. I thought it was total BS. The Dems just shot themselves in the foot for no reason.

P.S. Did FOX News mention the Republican platform last week? (If they did, I missed it.)

Its much ado about nothing... its just steamrolling the dissent to show unity.

To your question: 1) I don't watch Fox News 2) Republicans are pretty unified 3) The Paul thing is actually very much like what happened today.

[Tom]

How did they shoot themselves in the foot?
I make a point to never listen to a bunch of proven liars, so I missed it.



I did not have sex with that woman.